One more reason why I detest the left is that they are constantly trying to distort reality in the manner so accurately described by George Orwell. This may seem like a trivial example, but the in-your-face insistence that our first lady is some kind of smokin' hot babe is a case in point. All heterosexual men know that this is an outrageous lie. Who are they trying to kid, and why?

Look, we're talking about an average looking woman here. Sarah Palin is not going to lose any sleep over the comparison. But why is this lie being promulgated with such urgency and to such absurd lengths by the liberal media? There must be something more significant going on when someone is in such an insistent state of denial. It reminds me of the liberal love-fest over the Edwards' marriage a couple of years ago. How'd that work out?

Here is a typical tongue bath by closet lesbian columnist Sally Quinn. She says that the first lady's arms -- her arms, fer cryin' out loud -- "are representative of a new kind of woman: young, strong, vigorous, intelligent, accomplished, sexual, powerful, embracing and, most of all, loving."

Hmm. That's quite a devastating indictment. A young, intelligent, and sexy woman is a "new kind of woman"? This is insane. Not only is Quinn seeing something in Michelle that isn't there, but she's not seeing things that have always been there in abundance. Or perhaps she's never strolled through the UCLA campus on a warm September day. Oh, mama!

Why does the left need to insist that its current obsession is sexually attractive. Remember when they tried this with Hillary and then Chelsea Clinton. Remeber just a few weeks ago when some of these nutjobs were comparing her to Carla Bruni? I know, I still have trouble believing it myself, but these are the exact same people who compared the Williams Sisters to Anna Kournikova. I would be fair and say that Michelle Obama is not particularly good-looking, but by no means ugly. And she is dedicated to her own particular sense of style, which the liberals seem to like but I guess I don't get.

14
posted on 05/12/2009 3:38:49 PM PDT
by presidio9
("a stable once had something inside it that was bigger than our whole world," -Lucy Pevensie)

 Your Butt Will Look Good In These Jeans: In the February 9th issue of New York Magazine, designer Isabel Toledo  who outfitted Michelle Obama for the swearing in ceremony - is asked whether the two women had met. They had, just one time, and Toledo tactfully describes her first impression:

I hugged her and thought Let me see what size? Shes got an amazing torso and long, beautiful arms. Shes like a spider.

Toledo chose not to be blunt about Mrs. Obama having large hips, thighs and buttocks. But rather than be dishonest or fawning, the designer subtly made her point by comparing Mrs. Obamas figure to an insect that tends to have skinny arms and a bulbous lower body.

***

And this:

 Updates To Previous Posts (third item, Your Butt Will Look Good In These Jeans): Gushing that Those toned arms are becoming a trademark, CNN.com tells readers how to get Michelle Obama’s toned arms. Its true that Michelle Obamas arms are her best feature  and she knows it, having posed for the March cover of Vogue in a sleeveless silk sheath and for the cover of People magazine in a lacy pink sleeveless dress  but brown-nosing journalists would do the First Lady a favor if they instead told her how to get Beyoncés butt (no junk in that trunk).

Take that Vogue cover, for instance. Michelle Obama is artfully angled and posed so her huge hips are hidden by the sofa cushions; the skirt of the dress is scrunched to place extra fabric around the hips so the form-fitting cut doesnt accentuate her thighs; and her arm obscures most of her chest so as not to call attention to how comparatively bottom-heavy her figure is, since her breasts are very, very small. A lot of photographic sleights of hand went into this cover, just like those before and after photos in ads for miracle weight loss aids:

She says that the first lady's arms -- her arms, fer cryin' out loud -- "are representative of a new kind of woman: young, strong, vigorous, intelligent, accomplished, sexual, powerful, embracing and, most of all, loving."

This begs for satire. Her hips, her thighs, her big ol' feet ... lol.

I'll give it a spin:

"Her thighs are representative of a new kind of woman: mature, stout, enveloping, sweaty and, most of all, well grounded."

Shes an average middle aged woman with two children. ...and theres nothing wrong with that.

She looks like a normal woman, but certainly not the traffic stopping beauty the MSM would have us believe.

That's about it. She's no great beauty.

And that "young, strong, vigorous, intelligent, accomplished, sexual, powerful, embracing and, most of all, loving" goes too far. How does Sally Quinn know how "sexual" and "loving" Michelle is? And how far can anyone else trust Sally's judgement in things like this.

But she's not monstrous or hideous or a sasquatch either. Too much of what people on both sides are saying is just a knee-jerk reflection of whether her politics and the commenter's politics coincide or not.

I just do not get the fascination with her, especially her arms.She is over 40 and has over year old arms.I think she always looks like she has a mouth full of marbles.And really who dresses her. Normally she looks like a trollop.

47
posted on 05/12/2009 3:48:40 PM PDT
by svcw
(There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who know binary and those who don't.)

It’s because she’s black. We all have eyes. Sheesh she has a gorilla mouth, ugly legs so far apart she could hold 2 watermelons between them. She gets whiter each day, soon she will look like Michael Jackson. She dresses absurdly. Her feet are bigger than most mens. Her hair is nasty. I could go on and on.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.